For my paper I am planning on writing about Nuclear Energy and arguing how it is worth investing time and money into using it as an alternative energy source.
Starr, Paul. "The healthy fallout from Fukushima." The American Prospect 22.4 (2011): 3. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.
This source is reasons why nuclear energy is NOT a smart path to go down as far as future energy sources go. This would be included in the rebuttal paragraph since it is a source arguing my stance. Although I understand why this source believes what they do, they fail to look at the positive aspects of using nuclear energy. They state that,
“Nuclear power is phenomenally more expensive than the alternatives, there is still no solution to the disposal of spent fuel, and as the Fukushima catastrophe illustrates, the potential costs of disaster are so staggering that no private investors will risk the full liability.”The American Prospect also says that natural gas is better for the environment and cheaper, so it should be an alternative source of energy overtop of nuclear. But what they don’t realize is that US can’t effectively receive power off of one source of energy. I think it’s a combination between solar, natural-gas, wind and nuclear energy, and I will get a source to back this up.
He also states, “If there is one consistent theme in what conservatives say on energy and climate, it is this: There's no real need to change, and you shouldn't have to..” This is completely ridiculous statement and I plan to argue you him here. Although he believes that “there’s no real need to change” he is clearly unaware that oil production is not unlimited and global warming is going to creep up on us quicker than he thinks. Global warming has already been a serious issue. He says that “Public investment should develop the technologies that are moving in the other direction with real promise of becoming dramatically less expensive and more efficient.” Although I do not agree with his claims, I plan to include his argument in my paper since this is a very controversial topic.
This is also another source that is against Nuclear Energy : (http://ic.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=true&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010132277&mode=view_ )
SOURCE 2:
Volume 21, Issue 22
Clemmitt, M. (2011, June 10). Nuclear power. CQ Researcher, 21, 505-528. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/cqresearcher
This source gives background on the meltdown of the nuclear power plant in Japan. Japan is very crucial to people views of nuclear energy in America and all over the world. Because of Japans explosion, nuclear energy lost 50% of support in the US. This source explains the causes on why it happened.
This stance for the most part remains fairly neutral. They explain why the support numbers have gone down, but they also go into what I like to call, the ‘good guys’, are doing. She says, “Regulators and the industry have tried to ensure that plants themselves are better prepared, says Denis Beller, a research professor in nuclear engineering at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. For example, he says, U.S. plants regularly conduct drills on how to respond to losses of electrical power that can leave a facility unable to cool its nuclear fuel, as occurred in Japan” So there are steps being taken in order to make the plants safer, which is a very big concern to most Americans.
This source also brings up some numbers. In the previous source, the American Prospect was ranting about how expensive nuclear energy is. Yes, nuclear energy is more expensive than natural gas, but when looking at the chart. It is almost half of the price of solar and wind generation.
Also like I previously mentioned, I believe that having one solution to the energy crisis is not the right way to go for our society. This source supports me saying,“ Nuclear is not the only solution, nor is any other single” power source, says Joshua Freed, director of the clean- energy program at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank in Washington. “If we do this right, we're going to see a robust” nuclear sector, alongside other technologies, such as thin-film solar power and advanced energy -storage technologies, he says.”
(-Look into “Is Nuclear Power too Danergous” “Pros/Cons” and “Fears Renewed” which gives the positive aspects about nuclear energy and how Obama is encouraging to give subsidies to nuclear power plants.)
SOURCE 3:
After going through so many nuclear-energy haters, I finally found a resource that supports nuclear energy. When asked if nuclear was over they stated, “There is some evidence that it's not, that there is still life in the technology, if for no other reason than the fact that the alternatives are polluting or impractical on a mass scale. Indeed, looking at projects in development, nuclear energy use worldwide is set to grow substantially over the next decade”
There is a revival of a nuclear plant happening in Canada which is expected to boost up supporters for nuclear energy. Also, there is a lot of talk about how nuclear energy is “unsafe” and because of that, not worth investing in. But this source states that “The number of people harmed by incidents around nuclear plants over their 60-year history is small compared to those harmed by coal-fired plants during the same period.” Which completely contradicts what so many people are fighting for.
*Look at:
